RIPE statement on new IANA draft 4 bylaws

RIPE Statement on the Draft Articles and Bylaws 
for the new IANA as published on September 17th 1998 

Edinburgh, 25 September 1998

RIPE is the organisation which has provided the framework for 
Internet co-operation in Europe since 1989.

At the 31st RIPE meeting, held in Edinburgh from 23 until 25 September
1998, 253 participants from the European Internet industry
discussed the fourth draft of the Bylaws of the New IANA,
published on 17 September by IANA, and decided unanimously to
express the following concerns.

- We find it inappropriate that provision is made in the Bylaws 
  (Article IV, Section 1.d) which binds the new IANA to agreements 
  to be made between third parties, whose terms are not yet announced.

- We need to understand and consider the material consequences  of 
  Article IV, Section 1.e in order to determine whether we can accept this
  section. 

- We are concerned about the room for interpretation
  in Article V, Section 6 and would like to see a stronger 
  requirement of diversity than to allow 50% of the board to be 
  from one region.

- We are concerned about the far-reaching repercussions of codifying, 
  at this stage, aspects of a possible membership structure that 
  previously were left for the Initial Board to define and implement.
  We do not understand the reason for the fact that the board
  members nominated by the supporting organisations have no say at all in
  how the membership structure is implemented (V.4.a.iv, V.9.c). 

- We need to understand the reasons for and the material consequences
  of the weakening of the language in Section VI.1.c which now speaks of
  recommendations by the supporting organisations to the board.

- It appears that the change in wording of Article III.2 may now imply 
  that minutes of supporting organisation bodies have to be approved 
  by the Board of the new IANA.   We find this inappropriate.

- We are anxious about the possible consequences of the changes made 
  to the requirements for supporting organisations, especially in 
  Article VI, Sections 2 and 3.b.  In the area of the address 
  supporting organisation the participation of individuals and 
  individual organisations currently happens at the local and regional 
  levels.  Many European ccTLD registries already operate similar
  processes; others have begun working along these lines.
  We need to understand whether the Bylaws allow for this practice to
  continue or if they constrain the supporting organisations sufficiently
  to require changes in these structures.  We stress that we have no 
  difficulty with the added openness requirements. 

We are willing to work to resolve the remaining issues with all parties 
concerned as soon as possible, and hope that this statement, expressing
our concerns, will be received as a helpful contribution to the process.

We urge all concerned not to proceed with the current proposal before
our concerns are addressed.  In the meantime the current IANA should 
continue to function and provide its services to us.


Rob Blokzijl
Chairman RIPE




-------- Logged at  Wed Sep 30 16:51:42 MET DST 1998  ---------